This weekend the Hungarian government held its anti-migrant referendum, asking people if the European Union should be able to require it to house asylum seekers from overwhelmed Greece and Italy.
The country had been asked to find a home for 1,294 people who’ve fled war—a miniscule number considering its population of 10 million. But rather than accept it, the Hungarian government called a referendum and spent millions trying to whip up sentiment against migrants and asylum seekers.
In the lead-up to the vote, the government spent 16 million Euros of taxpayers’ money on a four-month long hate campaign, including thousands of billboards nationwide, booklets sent to 4 million households, and TV and radio ads spewing out both distorted facts and outright lies.
Expand
Hungarian police patrol the border with Serbia in Röszke, Hungary. The Hungarian government put up the razor-wire fence in an effort to stem the flow of refugees and migrants into Hungary. September 3, 2015.
But still the government didn’t win. While those who did vote chose almost unanimously to reject the EU deal, many people heeded a boycott call by opposition groups and fewer than 40 percent of the electorate bothered to turn up at polling stations. This left Hungary without the necessary 50 percent turnout required for the referendum to be valid. Despite the months of propaganda, many Hungarians appear not to have bought the government’s argument.
Never one to let facts get in the way of politics, Prime Minister Viktor Orban quickly took to the airwaves in a live television speech to the nation, spinning the defeat as an “outstanding victory” and saying he’s now determined to amend the constitution to reflect “the will of the people.” After his speech, there were fireworks over the Danube River in the colours of the Hungarian flag.
Some are now asking what the referendum result means for a continent that appears unable—or unwilling—to deal with the refugee crisis on its doorstep.
From a legal perspective, the referendum was a meaningless exercise to start with. Even if voters had supported the referendum and turned up in sufficient numbers, it would have had no legal impact on the EU relocation deal, which is binding on all member states. An attempt by Hungary to challenge the deal at the EU Court of Justice, begun in December, is still pending.
More troubling is the possibility that another EU government could seek to emulate Hungary and concoct a moot referendum of their own to justify months of state-funded xenophobic rhetoric and whip up sentiment against asylum seekers and migrants in their territory.
EU institutions, including the European Commission and Council, have remained virtually silent on the Hungarian government’s hate and disinformation campaign, the referendum, and the abuses committed against asylum seekers and migrants on Hungary’s border with Serbia. The Commission has taken a first step on enforcement proceedings on some aspects of Hungary’s abusive asylum system, but it’s unclear whether it will follow through.
Despite the positive outcome of the referendum, it’s unlikely to improve the situation of asylum seekers and migrants in Hungary.
During the campaign for the referendum, Orban and his government spent months relentlessly stirring up xenophobic sentiments, casting asylum seekers and migrants as “intruders” and “potential terrorists.” Billboards warned — falsely — that sexual abuses against women in Europe have skyrocketed since the migration crisis began, while a booklet spouted the preposterous claim that European cities with large migrant populations have “no go” areas which police cannot control.
The government has made it painfully clear that asylum seekers and migrants are not welcome in Hungary. This means that the current practices of denying people fair and efficient access to asylum will continue. The situation on Hungary[...]

This week marks 15 years since Eritrea’s opposition politicians and independent journalists saw freedom. In September 2001, Eritrean security forces arrested 11 government officials, 10 journalists, and numerous other dissidents, all of whom had one thing in common – they had criticized President Isaias Afeworki’s leadership. None of them have been seen since.
Expand
Eritrean refugees hold placards during a protest against the Eritrean government outside their embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel May 11, 2015.
None have been charged with a crime. They have now been held in incommunicado and indefinite detention for fifteen years. They have never been visited by family members. International calls for their release have been wholly ignored. Information from prison guards and others over time has trickled out, suggesting that several have died in captivity. In June, Osman Saleh, Eritrea’s foreign minister gave hope to family members and friends when he stated to Radio France Internationale (RFI) that “they are alive”.
Eritrea is one of the worse abusers of human rights in Africa. It has no functioning legislature, no opposition parties, and no independent media. National service, where people are forced to work for the military or in other government positions, is intended to last for 18 months but is often much longer –a decade or more – and harsh, with almost non-existent pay. Arbitrary detention is commonplace, particularly for those who try to evade national service. Many Eritreans report torture in detention. There is no rule of law, and there are restrictions on movement within many parts of Eritrea – for Eritreans and foreigners alike. Thousands of Eritreans flee their country each year to Ethiopia, Sudan, and Europe seeking a better future.
In June 2016, a UN Commission of Inquiry determined that abuses committed by the Eritrean regime are likely to constitute crimes against humanity. The Commission of Inquiry report will be presented to the UN General Assembly for consideration on October 27.
Over the past two years, the EU and several countries have broken with the isolationist approach historically adopted on Eritrea and opened renewed dialogue and partnerships.
On this anniversary of Eritrea’s crackdown, the EU and Eritrea’s other new-found friends should push for information about the whereabouts of those arrested in September 2001. If they are still alive, they should be charged and tried fairly and impartially, or released immediately.
For their family members, information about their well-being and whereabouts is long overdue. And for the Eritrean government, the move would signal they are serious about starting to implement reforms that they have spoken about but not delivered on.
It would be a particularly important signal to give ahead of the UN General Assembly’s debate.
[...]

Summary
We all have to live in the borders of the boxes our dads or husbands draw for us.
—Zahra, 25-year-old Saudi woman, April 7, 2016
It can mess with your head and the way you look at yourself. How do you respect yourself or how [can] your family respect you, if he is your legal guardian?
—Hayat, 44-year-old former school principal, December 7, 2015
In Saudi Arabia, a woman’s life is controlled by a man from birth until death. Every Saudi woman must have a male guardian, normally a father or husband, but in some cases a brother or even a son, who has the power to make a range of critical decisions on her behalf.
As dozens of Saudi women told Human Rights Watch, the male guardianship system is the most significant impediment to realizing women’s rights in the country, effectively rendering adult women legal minors who cannot make key decisions for themselves.
Rania, a 34-year-old Saudi woman, said, “We are entrusted with raising the next generation but you can’t trust us with ourselves. It doesn’t make any sense.”
Every Saudi woman, regardless of her economic or social class, is adversely affected by guardianship policies.
width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/hPht8rM_GaQ?width=640&height=360&thumbnail_image=maxresdefault&theme=dark&autoplay=0&vq=large&rel=0&showinfo=1&modestbranding=0&iv_load_policy=1&controls=1&autohide=2&enablejsapi=1&origin=https://www.hrw.org&start=0&wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system remains the most significant impediment to women’s rights in the country despite limited reforms over the last decade.
Adult women must obtain permission from a male guardian to travel, marry, or exit prison. They may be required to provide guardian consent in order to work or access healthcare. Women regularly face difficulty conducting a range of transactions without a male relative, from renting an apartment to filing legal claims.
The impact these restrictive policies have on a woman’s ability to pursue a career or make life decisions varies, but is largely dependent on the good will of her male guardian. In some cases, men use the authority that the male guardianship system grants them to extort female dependents. Guardians have conditioned their consent for women to work or to travel on her paying him large sums of money.
width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ywkCrEBcoww?width=640&height=360&thumbnail_image=maxresdefault&theme=dark&autoplay=0&vq=large&rel=0&showinfo=1&modestbranding=0&iv_load_policy=1&controls=1&autohide=2&enablejsapi=1&origin=https://www.hrw.org&start=0&wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system remains the most significant impediment to women’s rights in the country despite limited reforms over the last decade.
Women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia have repeatedly called on the government to abolish the male guardianship system, which the government agreed to do in 2009 and again in 2013 after its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Following both hearings, Saudi Arabia took limited steps to reform certain aspects of the guardianship system. But, these changes remain insufficient, incomplete, and ineffective; today, the guardianship system remains mostly intact.
width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-goe4zON-XE?width=640&height=360&thumbnail_image=maxresdefault&theme=dark&autoplay=0&vq=large&rel=0&showinfo=1&modestbranding=0&iv_load_policy[...]